Rémi Després wrote:
RJ Atkinson - le (m/j/a) 4/3/09 4:37 PM:
Gentle People,
At the 6AI BOF held at IETF last week, there seemed to be
rough consensus on the definitions for these 2 terms:
IPv6 NAT: Generic term for any sort of NAT/NAPT/SAT
for IPv6::IPv6 deployment
NAT66: Precise, specific, term for the proposal
documented in draft-mrw-behave-nat66-*.txt
This mail is sent privately to avoid heating more the debate on the
NAT66 list. (BTW is it a list just for Margaret's proposal, or a list
open to other ways to avoid some or all of the NAT44 pitfalls.)
The BOF was introduced as being for any NAT solution for IPv6 to IPv6,
and Margaret's was used as a DISCUSSION point to see if a wg would be
formed.
I believe that it is in good faith that you thought that a large
majority of others agreed on the understanding above. But AFAIK this
was not the case.
Personally, I don't remember any significant time to discuss
vocabulary at the 6AI BOF, and any test of consensus on this subject.
There was a hum that a generic term was appropriate, or some such hum.
Ran did go to the mike once to ask for care in terminology. Margaret
had already obsconded ( :) ) with NAT66 for her specific solution, so
the group needed a different generic one.
Please consider that my understanding, and Keith's, are also in good
faith.
IMHO, preempting a generic name, which was already in use, for just
one specific proposal (interesting but highly debatable), as Margaret
seems to succeed doing, doesn't render service to the community.
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
